Murders claim 'beggars belief'

THE jury which convicted Angela Cannings of murdering two of her three dead babies must have come to the extraordinary conclusion that she was "giving birth in order to kill", the Court of Appeal was told yesterday.

THE jury which convicted Angela Cannings of murdering two of her three dead babies must have come to the extraordinary conclusion that she was "giving birth in order to kill", the Court of Appeal was told yesterday.

To suggest that Cannings went on having babies over a period of 10 years, knowing she might be overcome by an urge to kill the child "beggars belief", said her counsel Michael Mansfield QC.

He argued that the jury had reached an "unsafe" verdict in the face of a mass of expert evidence to the effect that the deaths could have been due to sudden infant death syndrome - "cot death".

There was no evidence that she was mentally unstable, and witnesses, including family, work colleagues, neighbours, her local priest, doctors and health visitors had described her as a supportive, loving, caring mother.

Cannings, 40, a shop assistant, was found guilty by a jury of eight women and four men at Winchester Crown Court in April last year of the murders of seven-week-old Jason in 1991 and 18-week-old Matthew in 1999. She was not accused over the death of her first child, Gemma, at the age of 13 weeks in 1989.

Her appeal follows a decision earlier this year to overturn solicitor Sally Clark's conviction of murdering her two young sons, and the acquittal of pharmacist Trupti Patel on charges of murdering her three babies.

One of the witnesses who gave evidence against Cannings was Professor Sir Roy Meadow, whose research was also a key factor in the Clark and Patel cases.

His claim in the case against Mrs Clark, that the chance of two children of the same family dying of cot death was "73 million to one", has been challenged by recent research suggesting that, because of genetic links to cot death, the odds could be as short as 64 to one.

Cannings, serving her sentence in Bulwood Prison in Essex, was brought to the Court of Appeal in London so that she could listen from the dock to the arguments in her appeal.

Her husband Terry and members of her family were also in court.

At the start of an appeal hearing scheduled for five days, Mr Mansfield told Lord Justice Judge, the Deputy Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Rafferty and Mr Justice Pitchers that the Crown's case was that Cannings killed the two boys by smothering.

The difficulty for the defence was that, unlike the situation in other murder cases, it was not sufficient to say: "I didn't do it." It had to be shown that no crime at all had been committed.

That was why the defence had to rely on medical experts to explain what the causes of death might have been.

It was significant that none of the doctors and health workers close to the family concluded that the babies died from smothering.

Mr Mansfield said the Crown's evidence was not overwhelming. The possibility of death by natural causes could not be excluded.

Mr Mansfield told the judges: "This conviction doesn't make sense."

He argued: "There was no disorder, nothing in the background, nothing in the family history to suggest this was a woman who was bent on killing, or at least aware that she might kill if she gave birth."

She displayed nothing other than "normality", providing loving, caring attention.

The evidence of smothering came from Professor Meadow and consultant paediatrician Dr Martin Ward-Platt.

Mr Mansfield said: "Without Professor Meadow and Dr Ward-Platt, this case would not have left the ground."

The Crown "fundamentally depend-ed" on their opinions proving its case.

Their opinions had to be set against a "massive amount of medical evidence" which produced "at the very least very serious doubt about the safety of the conviction".

Overall there were 13 experts of "the highest calibre" who could be placed on that side.